On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, TimP wrote:
>The definition of CDATA within SGML depends upon whether it is used
>in the context of an element content definition or an attribute definition.
Sez who?
>This 'asymetry'[1] has let us into the position where we have to encode
>VALID urls within HTML.
Yes. This is because URIs and HTML are to separate things. If you read the HTML
specification you'll find that it makes reference to external specifications of
URIs rather then define them itself. Just because something is a valid URI
doesn't mean it's valid HTML.
>I want to understand why this asymetry exists and why it is tolerated.
>I really like SGML, and have used it successfully in a few projects,
>(though I would not claim to know it in detail), but I cannot persuade my
>collegues of its benefits whilst it forces the requirement to encode URLs
>upon them.
Why is that a problem? You have to encode ampersands in the content of, say, a
BLOCKQUOTE or STRONG element; why do you care that you hae to encode them
inside the href attribute to the A element? And why do you think this
represents an asymetry?
> [1] I found this term in the validator error help.
Huh? Which validator? I wasn't aware that the W3C Validator had any help to
speak of and the FAQs for the W3C Validator do not contain the term "asymetry".